Please help!! 20+ parking tickets

Guys_Dad

The_Deep wrote: »

BTW, what has happened to Quentin? I was hoping for an apology by now.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Quicker to wait for PPC's and IAS accepting mitigation, I fear. ( and for once, not a dig at Quentin)

lyndsay1989

Ok so yesterday I have received another debt collectors letter offering a reduced payment. However, I did not receive a previous debt collectors letter for the charge it is referring to. The original debt collectors letter I had was from the 29th May. This one is from the 27th May. The letter reads:

REDUCED PAYMENT OFFER OF £96.00 TO AVOID POTENTIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS

We refer to our letter dated 26/08/2015. As we did not receive payment from you, we referred your case to the creditor with the recommendation that they appoint their solicitor to commence court proceedings against you.

In order to comply with 'pre-action protocol' and to demonstrate to the court their attempts to settle this matter before the need for court proceedings, our client is prepared to accept a reduced payment of £96.00 in full and final settlement...

...This is our client's final offer to settle the case.

If you are liable for this charge and do not pay the reduced amount by 24/09/2015, or if you have not agreed a payment option with us by then, the amount due will go back to the full amount of £120.00 and the matter will be referred back to the creditor to consider commencing court proceedings.

Am I right in thinking that I should ignore this? I appealed against a different parking ticket and will continue to do so for any future ones that I receive,

toddstar

lyndsay1989 wrote: »

Ok so yesterday I have received another debt collectors letter offering a reduced payment. However, I did not receive a previous debt collectors letter for the charge it is referring to. The original debt collectors letter I had was from the 29th May. This one is from the 27th May. The letter reads:

REDUCED PAYMENT OFFER OF £96.00 TO AVOID POTENTIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS

We refer to our letter dated 26/08/2015. As we did not receive payment from you, we referred your case to the creditor with the recommendation that they appoint their solicitor to commence court proceedings against you.

In order to comply with 'pre-action protocol' and to demonstrate to the court their attempts to settle this matter before the need for court proceedings, our client is prepared to accept a reduced payment of £96.00 in full and final settlement...

...This is our client's final offer to settle the case.

If you are liable for this charge and do not pay the reduced amount by 24/09/2015, or if you have not agreed a payment option with us by then, the amount due will go back to the full amount of £120.00 and the matter will be referred back to the creditor to consider commencing court proceedings.

Am I right in thinking that I should ignore this? I appealed against a different parking ticket and will continue to do so for any future ones that I receive,

i was only going to type 'yes' but you have to type at least 10 chars

Ralph-y

or put it this way ..... the last thing the debtcrawler wants is for it to go to court ...... as they then get no £££

keep up the good work

Ralph:cool:

lyndsay1989

Ok, my appeal has been rejected. It says:



.ExternalClass p.ecxMsoNormal, .ExternalClass li.ecxMsoNormal, .ExternalClass div.ecxMsoNormal {font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}.ExternalClass h1 {text-autospace:none;font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#2E74B5;font-weight:normal;}.ExternalClass p.ecxMsoTitle, .ExternalClass li.ecxMsoTitle, .ExternalClass div.ecxMsoTitle {text-autospace:none;font-size:28.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black;}.ExternalClass a:link, .ExternalClass span.ecxMsoHyperlink {color:#0563C1;text-decoration:underline;}.ExternalClass span.ecxMsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:#954F72;text-decoration:underline;}.ExternalClass p.ecxMsoNoSpacing, .ExternalClass li.ecxMsoNoSpacing, .ExternalClass div.ecxMsoNoSpacing {text-autospace:none;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black;}.ExternalClass span.ecxEmailStyle17 {font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext;}.ExternalClass span.ecxHeading1Char {font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#2E74B5;}.ExternalClass span.ecxTitleChar {font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black;}.ExternalClass .ecxMsoChpDefault {font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}.ExternalClass div.ecxWordSection1 {}.ExternalClass ol {}.ExternalClass ul {}


Thank you for youremail regarding the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN).

I have carefully reviewed the case and have considered the points that you raised. Unfortunately, I cannot cancel the PCN and it is still payable. I have explained my findings in more detail below.

My findings

The site in question is subject to terms and conditions, which are stated on signs throughout the area. As these terms were breached on the date in question (no permit), a PCN was correctly and legitimately issued.

I attach photographic evidence taken at the time of the parking contravention.

Internet templates

I must also stress that simply sending in standard template responses, most likely obtained from the internet, will not resolve the matter. In addition, I would recommend that professional legal advice be sought on this matter as an alternative.

Amount charged

If you refer to the British Parking Association’s code of practice, you will discover that the sum in question is within what this body deems reasonable.

I also draw your attention to the landmark decision made by the Court of Appeal in ParkingEye vs Beavis [2015]. Following the judgment made by three senior judges, which is currently subject to an appeal, it was ruled that the parking charge issued in this case "was not extravagant or unconscionable", "held that a motorist who parks his car in the car park does so on the terms displayed in the notices" and was "enforceable under common law".

In the case of the present parking charge, we believe that similar conditions apply.

A transcript of the decision can be found at:

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/402.html

Therefore, if you are still refusing to pay the charge then I strongly suggest that you obtain professional legal advice.

I would also like to remind you that when you parked your vehicle on the site in question, you contractually agreed to abide by the terms and conditions attached to that site. As stated, these terms and conditions are adequately displayed on signage at the site. If you did not wish to abide by these terms and conditions, nor accept the charges incurred should they be breached, you were under no obligation to park on the property in question.

Court action

I feel obligated to inform you that, under the Pre-Action Protocol of the Civil Procedural Rules, court action must only be viewed as a last resort. I am attempting to abide by this direction by trying to settle the matter amicably without court involvement.

Your actions may be viewed as obstructive to this aim and will be made clear to the court should the matter escalate to such a stage.

Harassment

Harassment has been referred to and therefore I feel obliged to point out that under S1(3)(c) of The Harassment Act 1997, a course of conduct that someone alleges to be harassment will not be deemed so if the person who pursued it shows that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.

Under the circumstances our course of action has been entirely reasonable and in no way reaches the high threshold of harassment. Our company has legitimately pursued recompense for a breach of the terms and conditions attached to our client’s site.

Landowner’s authority

We act upon the behalf of our client, who in turn acts upon the behalf of the landowner as their authorised agent. At this stage, we are not obligated to provide you with either the landowner’s contact details or with a copy of the agreement made between our client and the landowner and therefore will not be doing so. However, if the matter does proceed for legal action, all relevant documentation will be provided to the court.

Signage

The signage on site is sufficient and is in line with the guidelines laid down by the British Parking Association (BPA).

The majority of motorists who park at the site do so without receiving a PCN. This is undoubtedly due to the fact that they are aware of the terms and conditions of the site and park in conformity with them. If as you claim the signage was inadequate, the terms and conditions of the site would be unknown to the majority of drivers, and many more motorists would receive PCNs on this site.

Legal basis

The claim in question is based in contract law. When you parked your vehicle on the site in question, you contractually agreed to abide by the terms and conditions attached to that site. As stated, these terms and conditions are adequately displayed on signage at the site. If you did not wish to abide by these terms and conditions, you were under no obligation to park on the property in question.



Any advice on what I should do next?

Herzlos

This is from the parking company? It's their usual BS response, and to be expected.

Did they include any mention of POPLA or a long number reference code, or any suggestions as to what to do next? Next step is to make the same appeal to POPLA, but you need a code for that.

The_Deep

Beavis is not a "landmark decision" and has nothing whatsoever to do with car parking in residential car parks, so why mention it?


This is a total distortion of the issues raised at Beavis, and should I think, be reported to the BPA? What do others think?


Why on earth did the OP mention harassment?

lyndsay1989

I didn't mention harassment. I submitted the standard template I found on the newbies forum below.



14th September 2015

Dear Sirs

Re: PCN No.......
I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car, on these main grounds:

a). The sum is disproportionate, does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it a core price term.
b) The sum is extravagant and unconscionable and cannot be justified.
c). There is no evidence that you have any interest in the land. I will complain to the landowner about your aggressive ticketing.
d). Your 'Notice' fails to comply with the POFA so there can be no keeper liability.
e). I believe that the signs were not seen/are ambiguous and the predominant purpose is to deter so there is no contract to pay this charge, which is a penalty.
Formal challenge
There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 or cancel the charge. I will only appeal further if you offer POPLA
Breach of CCRs
I hereby give notice of withdrawal from this alleged 'contract' which was never properly offered nor expressly agreed. This 'contract' is cancelled and any obligations now end.
I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully,

lyndsay1989

Sorry, this was also at the bottom of the email:

You now have three options to choose from:

1. Pay the PCN at the prevailing sum of £120.00 by 14th October 2015.

Payment can be made online or by phone. Go towww.parkingcsl.co.uk or phone 0208 528 4122. You can find full details of how to pay on the PCN issued to the vehicle and/or on the letter(s) sent if applicable.

1. Make an appeal to POPLA (Independent Appeals Service) by appealing online atwww.popla.co.uk (verification code: ). The only grounds for making an appeal are stated on the website and to be considered the appeal must be received by POPLA within 28 days of the date of this correspondence. Please note that if you opt to appeal to POPLA and the appeal is unsuccessful you will be only able to settle the PCN at the full amount of £120.00.

1. If you choose to not make payment or appeal, the amount outstanding may be sought via a debt recovery company and/or court action where further costs may be incurred as a result.

Herzlos

Firstly, remove the code from here. But appeal to POPLA using all of the usual points, there are plenty of examples on here.